Comparison of marginal fit between CAD-CAM and hot-press lithium disilicate crowns.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Hot-pressing and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) are major techniques for the fabrication of lithium disilicate crowns. They exhibit different accuracies regarding marginal fit, an important factor in restoration survival. However, studies comparing the marginal fit of different fabrication methods are lacking. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the marginal discrepancy (MD) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) of lithium disilicate crowns produced by the hot-press and CAD-CAM techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty typodont teeth were divided into 2 groups. Fifteen teeth were scanned with the CEREC Omnicam intraoral scanner, and crowns were fabricated with the CEREC MC XL chairside CAD-CAM milling unit from IPS e.max CAD blocks. Fifteen typodont teeth were sent to a dental laboratory, and lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated from IPS e.max press ingots using the hot-press technique. The 30 crowns were cemented and then sectioned with a precision saw. The MD and AMD were measured for each crown with a light microscope. One-way ANOVA was conducted to analyze significant differences in crown marginal fit between the fabrication systems (α=.05). RESULTS For the CAD-CAM technique, the mean values of the AMD measurements were 115 μm, and for the hot-press technique, 130 μm. The MD measurements were 87 μm for the CAD-CAM technique and 90 μm for the hot-press technique. One-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences between the fabrication methods regarding marginal fit (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS No significant differences were found between the fabrication methods tested. Both the CAD-CAM and hot-press techniques for producing monolithic lithium disilicate crowns produced MD values of less than 120 μm, within the clinically acceptable range.

[1]  Karla Zancopé,et al.  Micro-computed tomography evaluation of marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by using chairside CAD/CAM systems or the heat-pressing technique. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  J. Mclean,et al.  The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique , 1971, British Dental Journal.

[3]  N. Ford,et al.  Marginal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns Fabricated Using Conventional and Digital Methodology: A Three‐Dimensional Analysis , 2018, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[4]  Jack I Nicholls,et al.  Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. , 2010, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  G. Thomas,et al.  3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. , 2014, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[6]  G H Johnson,et al.  Marginal adaptation of castable ceramic crowns. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  N. Demir,et al.  Evaluation of the marginal fit of full ceramic crowns by the microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) technique , 2014, European journal of dentistry.

[8]  C. Petrie,et al.  Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs. , 2006, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[9]  Stavros Pelekanos,et al.  Micro-CT evaluation of the marginal fit of different In-Ceram alumina copings. , 2009, The European journal of esthetic dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Esthetic Dentistry.

[10]  J Chai,et al.  A comparison of the marginal fit of In-Ceram, IPS Empress, and Procera crowns. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[11]  K. Koyano,et al.  Fit of e.max Crowns Fabricated Using Conventional and CAD/CAM Technology: A Comparative Study. , 2016, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[12]  L. Correr-Sobrinho,et al.  In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems before and after cementation. , 2012, Operative dentistry.

[13]  T Miyazaki,et al.  CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. , 2011, Australian dental journal.

[14]  Pablo González de Villaumbrosia,et al.  Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera AllCeram crowns with two finish lines. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[15]  Igor J Pesun,et al.  Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. , 2007, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  W. Mörmann,et al.  Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic CAD/CAM crown-copings on chamfer preparations. , 2005, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[17]  Stig Karlsson,et al.  Fit of a new pressure-sintered zirconium dioxide coping. , 2004, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[18]  Ç. Ural,et al.  In vitro evaluation of marginal adaptation in five ceramic restoration fabricating techniques. , 2010, Quintessence international.

[19]  Werner H. Moörmann The evolution of the CEREC system , 2006 .

[20]  P. Vigolo,et al.  An in vivo evaluation of fit of zirconium-oxide based ceramic single crowns, generated with two CAD/CAM systems, in comparison to metal ceramic single crowns. , 2013, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[21]  Wael Att,et al.  Marginal adaptation of three different zirconium dioxide three-unit fixed dental prostheses. , 2009, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  S. Bayne,et al.  Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  D. Gratton,et al.  An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations. , 2008, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.